Corsair release their first monitor - the 32" 1440p 165Hz Xeneon 32QHD165

Soldato
Joined
12 Jan 2003
Posts
20,264
Location
UK
Soldato
Joined
19 Feb 2007
Posts
12,048
Location
Ye Olde Englande
When compared to the already excellent LG 32GP850-B that came out a couple of months ago, This monitor is not worth an extra 300 quid for a total of 800, That is way too much considering they have basically the same specs.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
19 Feb 2007
Posts
12,048
Location
Ye Olde Englande
LG 32GP850-B has been on offer for £400 for quite a while too, so it's double :eek:

Corsair after a bit of that RoG pie maybe ;)

I think they're banking on the Elgato accessory side of things due to being able to clip on and screw on the camera, Lights etc... still though double the price, Currently, Of the GP850-B says Corsair are out of touch.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Jun 2008
Posts
11,311
Location
Finland
Well, Corsair is selling pretty much basic memory with RGB for awesome low 50% price extra, so why not try same in monitors...
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Oct 2012
Posts
4,110
Location
Denmark
The monitor isn't really performing that well either.. you either have no overshoot but blur due to poor pixel response or a ton of overshoot... certainly not worth the money they want IMHO
 
Associate
Joined
28 Jun 2013
Posts
2,011
What monitor have they rebranded as their own i wonder, probably is an LG under the hood
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jan 2003
Posts
20,264
Location
UK
The monitor isn't really performing that well either.. you either have no overshoot but blur due to poor pixel response or a ton of overshoot... certainly not worth the money they want IMHO
Pixel response times are fine and motion clarity is very good in the “fast” mode and that’s without overshoot as well. There’s no need to go for the highest “fastest” mode which has too much visible overshoot
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Oct 2012
Posts
4,110
Location
Denmark
Pixel response times are fine and motion clarity is very good in the “fast” mode and that’s without overshoot as well. There’s no need to go for the highest “fastest” mode which has too much visible overshoot
Well either HUBs result are wrong or you and I have have a different definition of fine :).
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jan 2003
Posts
20,264
Location
UK
Well either HUBs result are wrong or you and I have have a different definition of fine :).
It’s the former :)

well, they’re not “wrong” per se, in that they are accurate measurements. BUT they’ve updated their response time testing methodology to something that is, in my opinion, unnecessarily aggressive and no longer representative of real world results. They now capture 3-97% of the response time curve for each measurement , contrary to 20+ years of what the term “response time” represents in the monitor and display market (its always been 10-90%).

That’s why all their results and measurements are now much slower than everywhere else, and much slower than all the results over that time span, so it’s very hard to fairly and accurately compare them.

in my opinion there is no benefit in capturing that much of the curve, it doesn’t translate back in to real world perceived performance any better. it also has significant issues with darker tone measurements which exaggerates numbers further. That’s their choice of course, but it has led to some questionable conclusions in recent reviews.

the Corsair is a good example. They suggest the “fastest” mode at 165Hz which maybe looks ok on paper in their data with that measurement method, but in real usage that’s not practical to use as overshoot is pretty visible. And that overshoot is very bad as soon as refresh rate / frame rate in VRR lowers. In reality the “fast” mode is far better and can be used at all refresh rates comfortably.

if you look at the measurements at TFTcentral (I appreciate you might not have early access yet) and Pcmonitors too you can see response time data that is far more relatable to real performance and makes more sense. Suddenly those figures don’t look bad :) That’s using an updated gamma corrected method which provides improved accuracy, but provides figures that actually fit real world perceived motion clarity. That’s then backed by pursuit camera photos from both sites showing that the motion clarity is very good in that mode. Trust me I’ve used it and have the screen :)

this is the problem with their new method. “Response times” being reported are not representative any more of what “response time” has always meant in the market, or what really translates in to real world usage.

more info on this whole situation, updated gamma corrected measurements and consideration of the 3-97% method in this article if you’re interested

https://tftcentral.co.uk/articles/response_time_testing
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jan 2003
Posts
20,264
Location
UK
The recent Asus ROG Swift PG32UQ is another good example that they criticised for being really slow, but in real world usage it’s not that much different to the Gigabyte FI32U which has substantially better numbers on paper. You can see the close similarity in real world performance in the TFTCentral review with direct pursuit camera photo comparison. I used them both side by side :)

This is the issue in relying purely on numbers, especially when using numbers that are too aggressive (again, in my opinion) and are then interpreted to mean one thing that maybe isn’t fair. For instance drawing conclusions about “refresh rate compliance”.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Oct 2012
Posts
4,110
Location
Denmark
@Baddass Thanks for pointing that out.. I'll take it into consideration in the future. When I have some time I'll do some reading on that link of yours.. Thank you for sharing.
 
Top Bottom